Examination of witnesses (Questions 420
- 435)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 1999
KIRSTY MCHUGH,
MR MARK
SHARMAN and MR
MILES MIDDLETON
420. It may not want to, but where really it
would be advisable to, because it could become so much bigger
and may be inappropriate for a village setting?
(Mr Sharman) I think, as I said earlier, in an answer
to an earlier question, there is an intrinsic danger in moving
businesses out of rural areas, unless it is an absolute necessity.
So my first answer to that question would be that legislation,
advice through planning guidance notes, and so forth, should encourage
local authorities and the business concerned to work together
in innovative ways to let them remain in the local area. Where
a business has to be moved from a particular area, because the
pressures it is placing on the infrastructure are too great for
it possibly to remain in that local area, then I think, again,
it is incumbent on a partnership between the planning authority
and the business. And I have to say that my experience within
the Chamber movement is that the word partnership in conjunction
with the words planning authority occur relatively little, it
is seen as a competition between planning authority and business.
There has to be a partnership between the planning authority and
the business to find a suitable site as near as possible within
the confines of minimising both the environmental and infrastructure
protection.
Mr Randall
421. If I can turn to Regional Development Agencies,
do you think the RDAs satisfactorily follow the advice they receive
from the Department of the Environment on the rural policy element
of the regional economic strategies?
(Mr Sharman) Kirsty, my colleague, has spent many
happy hours reading all of the economic strategies from the Regional
Development Agencies, a job which, I must be honest with the Committee
in saying, I am delighted I did not have to undertake personally,
so I think it might be a good idea if I let Kirsty comment on
that in detail.
(Ms McHugh) They tend to merge into one, once you
have read so many of them. On a general point, in terms of business
involvement with the RDA strategies, we have got a Regional Policy
Forum set up, which includes one business representative from
each of the RDA areas. At our initial meeting, we looked at the
consultation process on the economic strategies, and that seems
to have been very good, given the incredibly short timetables
that the RDAs were given to get their economic strategies out;
so we are very supportive of that. I think there is a general
element of concern among the members of the Regional Policy Forum
that urban policy and rural policy is looked at too distinctly,
and what I am slightly worried about is that the Government is
going to have its Rural White Paper, its Urban White Paper, and
won't be making the links. It is a very difficult thing to do,
and, I think, in too many economic strategies there was just a
chapter, which was "Oh, and this is the countryside bit,"
rather than "This is the impact of transport, or planning,
or employment," or whatever, "on both rural and urban
policy," all the way through.
(Mr Middleton) Chairman, if I can add two points on
this. First of all, and very briefly, to the extent that they
have got them right at the moment, it is alright, or may be okay,
but I think that there needs to be, are they going to be sustained
in the future, their commitment to their rural hinterlands, wherever
they are, and I would suggest that there is a strong need for
rural proofing on this, which arguably should be done through
and by the Countryside Agency, to ensure—
422. If I can just say, do you think that the
RDAs did not follow the advice they got from DETR?
(Mr Middleton) I think they did. I can speak really
only for the North East, and I know we did, I can assure you.
423. Ms McHugh, you read all of these things;
do you think they satisfactorily followed them?
(Ms McHugh) I think they did follow the guidance that
they received from the DETR, but I think the result is that too
many of them tried to be all things to all people; there are so
many different areas they had to pull together in this one document,
that you end up sort of just lost in a morass of different initiatives
and details.
424. You state that "they are being overburdened
with functions, yet are without adequate budgets or support..."
Do you think the RDAs have been rather disappointing, therefore?
(Ms McHugh) We like the RDAs, we are going to stick
with them, and we will lobby Government to help them, in terms
of funding. At the moment, they have inherited too many funding
streams which are pre-allocated. So, in terms of their own money,
their hands are tied, and I think that has to be looked at.
Mr Gray
425. Halfway between the Urban White Paper and
the Rural White Paper are the market towns; do you think economic
development of the countryside should be focused on market towns?
(Mr Sharman) I think there are benefits to it being
focused on market towns.
(Mr Middleton) Yes, I think this should form a major
plank for development. I think we would get better results.
426. But is there not a risk then the wider
countryside becomes peripheralised and the economic benefits do
not get out to the truly rural areas?
(Mr Middleton) There is, but with limited resources
I suggest that you are likely to get better value for money if
you concentrate on providing such services through the market
towns, and they then support their hinterlands.
(Mr Sharman) There also needs to be quite a broad
definition of market towns, Chairman, to take account of different
kinds of rural area.
Mrs Ellman
427. Should fuel duty be increased above the
rate of inflation, if the proceeds go to support rural transport,
at the next Budget?
(Ms McHugh) Obviously, we like what the Chancellor
has just done, in terms of getting rid of the fuel duty escalator;
but we are concerned that this could well create a situation whereby
the DETR put pressure on the Treasury to put up fuel duty so that
they get more money for transport spending, and we would not want
that money to take the place of money which is allocated at the
moment, it would have to be extra money. We would like to see
more of the fuel duty currently being hypothecated into public
transport and roads and not just the `above inflation' amount.
428. Would you like to see it above inflation,
if the proceeds go to support rural transport?
(Ms McHugh) There is a good case for actually putting
money into rural areas, given that they do, in fact, on the whole,
spend more money on fuel costs.
429. But would you support an increase in fuel
duty above inflation at the next Budget, if the proceeds went
to support rural transport?
(Ms McHugh) I would be very wary about agreeing with
that.
(Mr Middleton) And the effect is worse in rural areas,
because in many rural areas the car is not even a convenience,
it is an absolute necessity.
430. Why do you want to re-regulate buses, and
is it specifically for rural areas?
(Ms McHugh) Not necessarily specifically for rural
areas. We had a big project, Transport that Works, which came
out just before the White Paper last year, and one of the areas
that they looked at quite liked the idea of the quality partnerships
and the quality contracts. But, obviously, there is a problem
with buses not going to the right places at the right times of
the day, for employment purposes, and that is to do with getting
the people to the workplaces; and re-regulation, I think, is probably
one of the areas which could help that along.
(Mr Sharman) But there are also some specific competition
issues, and subsidised buses being taken out of service, as a
result of particular practices. Rather than waste the Committee's
time with going into the detail of those now, perhaps it would
be useful if I wrote to you about those, Chairman.
Chairman: That would be very helpful.
Mrs Ellman
431. Are you saying that quality contracts,
as proposed, are not going to be sufficient?
(Ms McHugh) I am not certain, at this moment in time.
432. You are not sure?
(Ms McHugh) I am not sure, no.
Mr Benn
433. You talk, in your evidence, about the need
to retain local services, but you put it under the section of
your evidence talking about planning regulations. Is it actually
a matter of planning that you think could have an impact on that,
and do you have any specific suggestions as to how this can be
done, apart from the one in your evidence about business rate
reduction?
(Mr Sharman) There are a number of issues. Just touching
on the business rates issue, very briefly, in terms of particularly
local services, thinking of village shops, there is already in
existence a village shops relief, which is, I have to say, my
own experience, talking to businesses, extraordinarily poorly
publicised by local authorities. And if I were to leave one message
with the Committee today, it would be to encourage local authorities
to promote that more effectively to those people that are eligible
for it, along with hardship relief, particularly since both of
those reliefs do not cost a significant amount of revenue to the
local authorities, because the vast majority of the extra relief
is claimed back from central government. So that is one very practical
example. In terms of services generally, we have great concerns
about loss of rural post offices, which do not just affect residents
but business communities and village shops, and, Kirsty, do you
want to pick up on any of the extra bits in there, or Miles?
(Ms McHugh) I think we are stuck for time.
(Mr Middleton) No.
Mrs Gorman
434. The Cabinet Committee you suggested, in
the absence of a Department of Rural Affairs, is now in place.
Do you really want a separate Department for all this?
(Mr Sharman) I think the short answer to that is no.
I think that we favour the approach of a Cabinet Committee more
than a separate Department; there is a danger of isolating rural
affairs by putting it in a separate Department, whereas rural
affairs issues really crosses a whole raft of Departments, including
Home Office, DETR, DTI, and others, and that it is better dealt
with through some form of Cabinet Committee that allows oversight.
435. Given your remarks about the impact of
bureaucracy already, and particularly in an obstructive way, to
the development of rural industries, why do you have such faith
in Government bodies at all; why are you not just campaigning
for deregulation?
(Mr Sharman) I think that, in certain areas, Government
bodies do have a role to play. We place great faith at the moment,
for example, in the development of a new Small Business Service
and look to ensure that that has a particular impact in rural
areas in co-ordinating a number of areas. The three key messages
here are, regulation with a light touch, think small business
first, and co-ordinate across Departments; those are the three
key things we would like to see the Cabinet Committee do and other
organisations involved in rural economic development.
Chairman: On that sort of slogan to finish with,
I think it is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed.
|
